Personal Jurisdiction: Pt. 1
The statutory authorization for personal jurisdiction over nonresident D, in federal court.
What is FRCP 4(k)?
The statutory authorization for personal jurisdiction over non resident D, in state court.
What are long-arm statutes?
This case provides the distinction between specific and general personal jurisdiction.
"Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewics" (1985) demonstrates the importance of this term, whose factors include: D deliberately engaged in significant activities within a state, or has created continuing obligations therein, and D will not be haled into a jurisdiction solely as a result of random, fortuitous, or attenuated contacts, or of the unilateral activity of another party or third person.
What is purposeful availment?
If the plaintiff has filed a lawsuit in federal court, this Rule prescribes the approved methods of notice.
What is FRCP 4?
Commonly known as the federal diversity statute, this statute contains two requirements, both of which must be satisfied for a federal court to have diversity jurisdiction over a given claim.
What is 28 U.S.C. § 1332?
Bonus: what are the two requirements?
Federal-question jurisdiction, or arising-under jurisdiction, is governed by this federal statute.
What is 28 U.S.C. §1331?
This federal statute governs supplemental jurisdiction.
What is 28 U.S.C. § 1367?
This federal statute governs removal jurisdiction.
What is 28 U.S.C. § 1441?
This federal statute governs venue.
What is 28 U.S.C. §1391?
D should move to dismiss for "forum non conveniens" if P has filed in state or federal court, and D's preferred forum is in a _________________.
What is a different system?
What is general jurisdiction?
What is specific jurisdiction?
This case demonstrates that the residency of P might make a difference and, as such, you must examine the relatedness of each claim, by each P, to the forum.
What is "Bristol-Meyes Squibb v. Sup. Ct." (2017)?
"Hanson v. Denckla", "WWV", and "Nicastro" demonstrate that creation of contacts with forum through another's "___________________" does not create purposefully availing contacts.
What is "unilateral activity"?
The Due Process standard articulated by the Supreme Court in "Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust" (1950).
What is the Mullane "reasonably calculated" standard?
The Supreme Court in "Hertz Corp. v. Friend" (2010) interpreted §1332(c)–defining citizenship of corporations–to mean that a corporation is deemed to be a citizen of every State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the State and foreign state where it has its principle place of business. The "Hertz" Court illustrated this test to analyze a corporations principle place of business.
What is the "nerve center" test?
"Nerve center" test - "where the corporation has an office from which its business was directed and controlled - the place where all of its business was under the supreme direction and control of its officers."
This rule, stated by the court in "Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Mottley" (1908), asserts that "[A] suit arises under the Constitution and the laws of the United States only when the plaintiff’s statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon those laws or that constitution. It is not enough that the plaintiff alleges some anticipated defense to his cause of action [that presents an issue of federal law]…. [Such allegations] do not show that the suit, that is, the plaintiff's original cause of action, arises under the constitution."
What is the "well-pleaded complaint" rule?
In cases with multiple claims, supplemental jurisdiction is the only option remaining when there FQ or diversity jurisdiction over at least one claim, but there is not FQ or diversity jurisdiction over ____ of the remaining claims.
What is each?
§1441(a) instructs that only this party can remove a civil action through notice filed in district court.
What is a defendant?
D should do this if P has filed in federal court, and D's preferred alternative is another federal district.
The court considers these two categories of factors in determining whether to dismiss for "forum non conveniens" in "Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert" (1946). (same factors are used to analyze whether to grant §1404 transfer motion)
What are private interests of the litigants and public-interest factors?
The following is a list of key ways a party can _____ to personal jurisdiction:
1. Initiate an action in the forum
2. Appear in action and defend on merits without challenging court's jurisdiction
3. Meet requirements of statute imputing or deeming _____
4. _____ in advance through contract
What is "consent"?
Residents of a forum are subject to this kind of personal jurisdiction. (easy analysis)
What is general jurisdiction?
The court in "Daimler AG v. Batman" (2014) rejected the "continuous and systematic" concept as the standard for general jurisdiction and reiterated the "___________________" standard from "Goodyear".
What is the "essentially at home standard"?
These two cases provide different examples of how consent can play a role in personal jurisdiction analysis.
What are "Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Ry." (2023) and "Carnival Cruise Lines" (1991)?
Bonus: how did each defendant consent to general jurisdiction?
This section of FRCP 4 provides the rules for waiver of service.
What is FRCP 4(d)?
This case provides the complete diversity rule: all plaintiffs must be diverse from all defendants.
What is "Strawbridge v. Curtiss" (1806)?
There are two types of FQ SMJ under §1331: causes of action created by federal law and "_________________________" jurisdiction. This type of FQ SMJ is available in some cases where cause of action is created by state law, not federal law, but resolution of claim requires deciding issue of federal law.
What is "embedded-federal question" jurisdiction?
§1367(a) requires that, for supplemental jurisdiction to be proper, additional claims must be part of the same case or controversy as the claim which is proper under §1331 or §1332. This is also known as the "______________" requirement for supplemental jurisdiction.
What is the "common nucleus" requirement?
This subsection of §1441 governs the removability of actions encompassing both removable and nonremovable claims.
What is §1441(c)?
The Supreme Court in "Atlantic Marine v. U.S. Dist. Ct." (2013) stated that, when deciding whether to grant a §1404 transfer, this should given controlling weight in all but the most exceptional cases.
What is a forum-selection clause?
In this case, the court considers made the following observations about "forum non conveniens": the possibility of a change in substantive law should ordinarily not be given conclusive or even substantial weight in the "FNC" inquiry; at the outset of any "FNC" inquiry, the court must determine whether there exists an alternative forum; and when P's home forum has been chose, it is reasonable to assume that this choice is convenient, unless the plaintiff is foreign.
What is "Piper Aircraft v. Reyno" (1981)?
Scenarios in which a defendant will not have a good argument against personal jurisdiction: (1) explicit consent (see above); (2) service of process on the defendant while the defendant is "__________________________" ; and (3) citizenship or residency in the forum.
What is "physically present in the forum"?
A third component of analysis for specific jurisdiction that is sometimes used alongside "contacts" and "relatedness", often as a tie-breaker if analysis with the other two components is unclear.
What is reasonableness?
This case demonstrates that if D's only connection with forum is interaction with Ps outside the forum–and D's interaction with Ps did not have anything to do with their forum residence–D lacks minimum contacts with forum.
What is "Walden v. Fiore" (2014)?
The court in this case demonstrates that every corporate D will not be "essentially at home" in every state in which it does significant business.
What is "BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell (2017)?
This section of FRCP 4 provides the rules for derive on an individual within the U.S.
What is FRCP 4(e)?
Under this standard, the court assessing whether it has SMJ, looks at the P's good faith assertions as to the amount of damages P is seeking and believes they can recover, unless there's some legal rule or principle that would prevent the plaintiff from recovering that amount.
What is the "legal certainty" standard?
Bonus: In what case did the Supreme Court state this standard?
This framework asks "does a state-law claim [1] necessarily raise [2] a stated federal issue, actually disputed and [3] substantial, which [4] a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities?"
What is the "Grable[/Gunn]" framework?
Bonus: which type of FQ SMJ does this framework apply to?
In this case, the Supreme Court interpreted §1367(b) to mean that, when original jurisdiction is based solely on diversity, there is no supplemental jurisdiction over listed claims.
What is "Exxon Mobil v. Allapattah Servs." (2005)?
§1441(b) creates this rule, which applies only when original jurisdiction is diversity jurisdiction (1332(a)).
What is the "home-state D" rule?
Only if no district fits in (1) if all Ds reside in the same state, venue proper in any district of D's residence or (2) venue proper in district(s) where substantial part of events and/or property located, then (3) venue proper in any district where ___________________________________.
Where any D is subject to PJ in the action?
Hypo:
“Metro Manufacturing, Inc.,” is a corporation incorporated in Delaware with its headquarters in Illinois. The company specializes in producing industrial machinery and has manufacturing plants in Illinois, Texas, and Michigan. Metro Manufacturing does not have any offices, warehouses, or employees in California. However, it does sell its machinery to distributors across the U.S., including a few based in California, who then sell the products to local businesses.
One day, a California business, Gold Coast Construction, purchases Metro’s machinery from a local distributor. Unfortunately, the machinery malfunctions, causing substantial damage to Gold Coast’s property. Gold Coast decides to sue Metro Manufacturing for defective design and seeks to recover damages. Gold Coast files the lawsuit in a California state court.
Do not answer in the form of a question.
Since Metro Manufacturing is neither incorporated nor headquartered in California and lacks substantial contacts to be considered “at home” there, California cannot exercise general jurisdiction over it. Instead, Gold Coast would likely need to bring the case in Illinois, where Metro Manufacturing is headquartered, or in Delaware, where it is incorporated.
Hypo:
Imagine “Summit Bicycles,” a bicycle manufacturer incorporated and headquartered in Colorado, which produces high-performance bikes. Summit does not have any stores, offices, or employees outside of Colorado, but it actively markets its products nationwide. Summit runs targeted advertising campaigns specifically aimed at outdoor sports enthusiasts in various states, including California. Summit also ships bikes directly to customers in California who order online, and its bikes are featured in ads on popular California cycling websites.
One day, a California resident named Alex purchases a Summit bicycle directly from Summit’s website. While riding the bike in California, Alex is injured when the bike frame breaks due to what he claims is a manufacturing defect. Alex decides to sue Summit Bicycles for negligence and product liability, filing his lawsuit in California state court.
Do not answer in the form of a question.
Since Summit Bicycles purposefully directed its activities at California, Alex’s claim arises directly from Summit’s forum-related activities, and it is reasonable to assert jurisdiction, California courts can likely exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Summit Bicycles for this claim.
This case demonstrates that a claim against D must "derive from or be connected with" D's contacts with forum; a causal connection between contacts and claim not required.
What is "Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct." (2021)?
The court in this case held that "mere purchases, even if occurring at regular intervals," are insufficient to support general jurisdiction.
What is "Helicopteros Nationales v. Hall"?
This section of FRCP 4 provides the rules for service on defendants that are corporations.
Hypo:
Three tenants, Alice, Ben, and Carla, all residents of New York, live in an apartment building that experienced major plumbing issues, causing water damage in each of their units. They believe the damage was due to faulty installation by “Top Plumbing Co.,” a company incorporated and headquartered in Pennsylvania. Each tenant suffered property damage and lost personal belongings as a result.
The tenants decide to jointly sue Top Plumbing Co. in federal court, each seeking damages as follows:
Combined, the total damages sought amount to $75,000. Alice, Ben, and Carla argue that since their combined damages reach the $75,000 threshold, they should be able to proceed in federal court.
Do not answer in the form of a question.
While there is complete diversity of citizenship between the plaintiffs and the defendant, the amount in controversy requirement is not met because the individual claims cannot be aggregated. Therefore, the federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under diversity jurisdiction, and Alice, Ben, and Carla would need to file their lawsuit in state court instead.
Hypo:
Dr. Maria Lopez, a surgeon licensed in California, enters into a contract with Valley Medical Supplies, Inc., a California-based company, to purchase medical devices for her practice. She later discovers that the devices do not meet the safety and efficacy standards required by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a federal agency that regulates medical devices. Dr. Lopez believes that Valley Medical Supplies knowingly sold her defective equipment that should not have been legally sold under federal law.
Dr. Lopez sues Valley Medical Supplies, Inc. in California state court for breach of contract and fraud under California law. She argues that Valley Medical Supplies misrepresented the devices’ compliance with FDA standards, making them unfit for medical use. Valley Medical Supplies then removes the case to federal court, claiming that Dr. Lopez’s fraud claim involves a substantial federal question because it centers on the interpretation of FDA regulations.
Hint: use the Grable Framework.
Do not answer in the form of a question.
Applying the Grable test, Dr. Lopez’s fraud claim raises a significant federal issue about FDA standards, which is necessary, disputed, and substantial. Therefore, the federal court likely has embedded federal-question jurisdiction over the case, allowing it to hear Dr. Lopez’s state law claims due to the important federal question regarding FDA compliance.
This subsection of §1367 authorizes the district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where declination is justified.
What is §1367(c)?
Hypo (Supplemental Jurisdiction):
John, a resident of Texas, sues his employer, “Bright Health Clinics,” a medical provider incorporated and headquartered in California, in federal court. John claims that Bright Health Clinics violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by failing to pay him overtime wages. Under the FLSA, he seeks $10,000 in unpaid overtime and liquidated damages.
In the same lawsuit, John also includes a state law claim for breach of contract, arguing that Bright Health Clinics promised him a $5,000 annual bonus but failed to pay it. This state law claim is separate from the overtime wages claim under the FLSA, but John believes both claims are related to his employment with Bright Health Clinics, so he includes them together in the federal lawsuit.
Do not answer in the form of a question.
The federal court has original jurisdiction over John’s FLSA claim under federal-question jurisdiction. Since the breach of contract claim shares a common factual basis related to John’s employment, the court can likely exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
Matching:
Statutes: Types:
(a) 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (1) Transfer to cure jurisdictional defect
(b) 28 U.S.C. § 1406 (2) Multidistrict litigation transfers
(c) 28 U.S.C. § 1407 (3) Convenience Transfer
(d) 28 U.S.C. §1631 (4) Transfer to cure improper venue
(a) 28 U.S.C. § 1404 - (3) Convenience Transfer
(b) 28 U.S.C. § 1406 - (4) Transfer to cure improper venue
(c) 28 U.S.C. § 1407 - (2) Multidistrict litigation transfers
(d) 28 U.S.C. §1631 - (1) Transfer to cure jurisdictional defect